The Stones are a great band and I respect them for what they were : talented musicians with a big influence.Their live shows are always a pleasure to watch (well, except maybe for few mid 70's ones with Mick being way too stoned), but otherwise, to me, they are simply not in the same league as The Beatles. There are quite many bands that I prefer over The Stones. Simply because I don't find myself listening to them as often and because their music never impressed me as much as other's.

As I said before, I respect them and I acknowledge their influence, but to me, their music is just not as good as The Beatles'.

nimrod

I think the Stones were 2nd only to The Beatles personally, in the 60's they made so many great singles and had a great sound, I loved their guitar tones all through the 60's, they became an even better band when Mick Taylor joined, a guitarist on a different level to Keith & Brian, for me thats the period they made theyre best albums, Sticky Fingers and Exile. Some great singles in that era were Brown Sugar, Angie & Tumbling Dice.Ronnie Wood joined after Taylor left and Ive not been a fan of their stuff since that day. To many mediocre albums followedI believe Jeff Beck nearly joined instead of Wood, its a pity he didnt as he wouldve improved them greatly imo and made them a much more interesting band.I like bands like Led Zep The Who and The Kinks but I remember when the Beatles were going in the 60's, The Stones were bigger than any of those bands, they were huge, and whether popularity can be seen as a guide or not, their hugeness cannot be denied.

I certainly wouldn't put U2 in the same league as the Stones in terms of musical influence and historical relevance.

the post isn't clear on whether you are evaluating on influence or historical relevance. I can listen to whole albums of U2 or a shuffle of U2 songs without getting bored. After a few stones songs I will switch it. Many great songs, led by incredible guitar licks. Somewhat boring to me if more than a "rock block" format of a few songs though.

comparing popularity between eras isn't really fair, the 60's measuring stick of fans going crazy as the groups fly around for shows and the hysteria is extremely muted by something called the internet, MTV etc. Plus the "going against the establishment" movement of the 60's enhanced the appeal and visibility of fandom.

The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Who are without doubt the Holy Trinity of the 1960's. So I think that the Stones and the Who fight for the place of 2nd greatest band ever.

In my opinion, the Stones were great from 1965 to 1972, and the Who released very solid records from their beginning in 1965 to the death of Keith Moon in 1978. In favor of the Stones, I must say that they released the same quantity of albums in the 1965-1972 period as the Who in 1965-1978, so Mick & friends were more productive. The Stones were also much more popular than the Who, if that counts. However, the Who had better musicians, delivering much more virtuosism. Moreover, Jagger-Richards and Townshend were all great songwriters, but Pete's lyrics were much better and more interesting in my opinion. Also, while the Stones were imitating the Beatles in 1966-1967, the Who presented a new original sound, with revolutionary songs like "My Generation", the mini-rock opera "A Quick One, While He's Away" and their own vision on psychedelia as in "I Can See For Miles". Meanwhile, the Stones best albums appeared in 1968-1972, and though they were first-rate blues-rock records, they weren't very innovative; at the same time the Who broke new ground with albums like Tommy (1969) and Who's Next (1971).

For all these factors, apart from personal taste, I vote the Who as the 2nd greatest band ever.

Ever since the Rolling Stones watched John and Paul writing a simple song like I Wanna Be Your Man on the spot, they have followed the Beatles in whatever they were doing in the sixties. It brought us good songs, some great. After the mid seventies, the Rolling Stones role was over. Of course, they're still here but their influence is stripped down to their input between 64-75.

I think The Kinks was a great band, one that even influenced the Beatles and was always innovative. Radiohead is a good call for being highly influental. Oh, and Abba of course.

But Led Zeppelin was not essentially a 1960's band, even though they started in the late-60's. Zep builded on the base of other great earlier 1960's bands; in fact I think that their format was inspired by the Who. If we are talking about bands, it was in the 1960's when that concept became strong.

My thoughts behind Zeppelin is that they put out 9 albums (I think) and none of them are weak (Presence maybe). They were like the Beatles in that regard. The Stones put out about 30 albums, but only 5 or so are strong from start to finish in my opinion. Same with the Who. Thats my take anyway and its just my opinion.

My thoughts behind Zeppelin is that they put out 9 albums (I think) and none of them are weak (Presence maybe). They were like the Beatles in that regard. The Stones put out about 30 albums, but only 5 or so are strong from start to finish in my opinion. Same with the Who. Thats my take anyway and its just my opinion.

What about 'Coda' ?

Also, The Beach Boys are up there, too. Too bad their post '79 albums (not including 'The Smile Sessions' and (hopefully) 'That's Why God Made The Radio') kinda ruined their discography. But on the other hand, I consider 'Pet Sounds' and 'Smile' (if it would've been finished in '67) to be the most ambitious, creative and perfect on every level albums ever done by anyone. And that's saying a lot.

were not narrowing this to 60's bands Hombre, its who was the 2nd biggest band of all time

Hey, I understand that very well. I just think that the 2nd greatest band ever must have certain parallelism with the Beatles, I always give a lot of credit to who came before. Anyway, this is just my opinion, and I'm a 60's nut, so I will always choose an essential band from that time.